CA: Lease Extension At Higgs Ignored (18 Viewers)

oldskyblue58 · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
But surely if they are being isolated for saying that they are trying but being ignored then what can be done? Surely CCFC are saying they are trying to form a partnership?

You would think if any other council was having an alternative of a rugby club from a different city and weren't bothered about the effect on the city's own football team (or rugby team in this instance) then surely questions should be asked of them rather than the whole "serves them right, they said something in 2013 / 2014".

Trouble is after years of confrontation it is hard on either side to stand back and offer partnership and for that to be viewed without suspicion. There is no trust between these parties and the club and that's in equal measure either way you look at it. CA I am sure is trying on the one hand to create small partnerships but on the other hand long accusatory statements fracture that again

Do you think Mr Breed reading that article would be more sympathetic towards CCFC or not - irrespective of if the site deal done with Wasps or not?

fernandopartridge · Jun 1, 2016

Suppose it

oldskyblue58 said:
Question does a landlord have to give notice when a lease terminates at a fixed point in time?

Paul Breed "exploring options" 19/05/2016 today is 01/06/2016 and two letters in last two weeks. Cant help thinking this is far too important to have waited so long in the first place let alone relying on letters. Yes common courtesy says Breed should have made contact sooner and better but .......

I am surprised that SISU/CCFC were unaware of the nature of discussions with Wasps given the charge that was filed against CAWAT at Companies House 18/03/2016

Communication is a two way thing and I get the impression that CCFC didn't start pushing for a new deal until this March. Nothing to stop them making the first move. It needed to be well before March though. Surely it must have occurred to someone that with Wasps looking for a training site then the Higgs Centre was a very possible target

All sides put their spin on it but I would rather have actual dates rather than "not long ago" kind of ties things down and helps the reader decide who did what when

Then I come back to the club being shut out etc - is that the case or have CCFC got to find an alternative (quickly) - or is it scene setting for another purpose

Sorry but I do not believe CA is unaware of the other stuff going on considering who he reports to and who actually makes the decisions

We are back yet again to issues being aired, battered and undecided in public. As I said in another thread many fans see another argument and switch off - we can not afford to do that on this issue.

Final question, I assume that CCFC has a disaster plan for these sort of things - are there any alternatives that could be made to work and FA still sanction Cat 2 status?

Suppose your first question depends on the lease agreement

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
Trouble is after years of confrontation it is hard on either side to stand back and offer partnership and for that to be viewed without suspicion. There is no trust between these parties and the club and that's in equal measure either way you look at it. CA I am sure is trying on the one hand to create small partnerships but on the other hand long accusatory statements fracture that again

Do you think Mr Breed reading that article would be more sympathetic towards CCFC or not - irrespective of if the site deal done with Wasps or not?

I think if he isn't replying then he doesn't really give a shit.

I expect he will put out a statement later putting it all on the club and he will then sit back and put his feet up and watch city fan go mad at the club while he sells them down the river.

torchomatic · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
I think if he isn't replying then he doesn't really give a shit.

I expect he will put out a statement later putting it all on the club and he will then sit back and put his feet up and watch city fan go mad at the club while he sells them down the river.

And lapped up by CT and many on here.

olderskyblue · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
As the Trust are saying, all sides should be answering questions.

I agree with that, except I think they should have been asking them much longer ago than now, or the last 6 months,,,

oldskyblue58 · Jun 1, 2016

You don't think CA's words could have been more measured and to the point? Actually put CSF on the spot because that article hasnt

torchomatic · Jun 1, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
You don't think CA's words could have been more measured and to the point?

If his communications had been answered then there wouldn't have been the need for words.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Jun 1, 2016

All this talk about the club need to be more aggressive in announcing there intentions and the csf need to be pressurised we know is largely irrelevant.

It's a done deal and neither of the above will change that.

It's interesting reading Anderson's quotes compared to when he first joined, when he first arrived he was all upbeat saying yea we can work with and negotiate with wasps/ACL/Higgs/council and we don't need our own stadium we can be at the Ricoh long term and people were applauding him for saying so.

Now he's alot more negative saying it feels like they are being forced out and that it feels like coventry doesn't want a football club. Seems he's only now realising what a cluster fuck he has walked into and that the event of the last 6 years have made it near impossible for Anderson to achieve his goals as no one has any interest in even talking to him or even listening to what he has to say.

armybike · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
Is this where you ignore what's actually going on and just have digs at les reid again?

The club are saying they want long term, just read the quotes from the club if you don't like his reporting.

How am I ignoring what's going on by asking why the article was ran without the other side being approached?

By doing so would/may have brought some clarity around what's actually going on rather than all the second guessing.

fernandopartridge · Jun 1, 2016

CCFC said:
Probably officially independent but the council can make it very difficult for anyone in the city seen to be working with the football club

They're independent but funny looking at the other facilities they manage (on behalf of CCC). Football doesn't feature much.

Buster · Jun 1, 2016

I refuse to let myself believe that all of these organisations/bodies have conspired against ccfc. What IS bad news for these peoplle is dealing with the entity that is,and the people that are connected to , SISU . Who in their right mind would offer Anderson a written record of a basis for the initial discussions on renewing a complicated lease . I can only see Joy filing it as exibit B in the next SISU battering expedition

olderskyblue · Jun 1, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
You don't think CA's words could have been more measured and to the point? Actually put CSF on the spot because that article hasnt

We are used to that "form" of words though OSB58, it seems a defacto standard

fernandopartridge · Jun 1, 2016

Ib

armybike said:
How am I ignoring what's going on by asking why the article was ran without the other side being approached?

By doing so would/may have brought some clarity around what's actually going on rather than all the second guessing.

I agree with you for once, a request for a comment from Breed would've helped.

oldfiver · Jun 1, 2016

[QUOTE="oldskyblue58, post:

Do you think Mr Breed reading that article would be more sympathetic towards CCFC or not - irrespective of if the site deal done with Wasps or not?[/QUOTE]

Breed only has sympathy for one cause and that is not CCFC nor CRFC

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
You don't think CA's words could have been more measured and to the point?

Which bit?

Surely it was showing confusion over CSF's statement that didn't really say anything

armybike said:
How am I ignoring what's going on by asking why the article was ran without the other side being approached?

By doing so would/may have brought some clarity around what's actually going on rather than all the second guessing.

Because surely you can see the reply will be in the telegraph as soon as the PR company have finished it?

fernandopartridge · Jun 1, 2016

Buster said:
I refuse to let myself believe that all of these organisations/bodies have conspired against ccfc. What IS bad news for these peoplle is dealing with the entity that is,and the people that are connected to , SISU . Who in their right mind would offer Anderson a written record of a basis for the initial discussions on renewing a complicated lease . I can only see Joy filing it as exibit B in the next SISU battering expedition

So the basis for initial discussions should be....? Do you read what you post at all

olderskyblue · Jun 1, 2016

armybike said:
How am I ignoring what's going on by asking why the article was ran without the other side being approached?

By doing so would/may have brought some clarity around what's actually going on rather than all the second guessing.

Must admit, I thought you were suggesting they do what Nick has suggested they do. approach both sides...

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

Buster said:
I refuse to let myself believe that all of these organisations/bodies have conspired against ccfc. What IS bad news for these peoplle is dealing with the entity that is,and the people that are connected to , SISU . Who in their right mind would offer Anderson a written record of a basis for the initial discussions on renewing a complicated lease . I can only see Joy filing it as exibit B in the next SISU battering expedition

So on one hand you say they aren't conspiring against CCFC and the next bit saying who on earth would work with them, which is basically the first bit you said you wouldn't believe?

torchomatic · Jun 1, 2016

Buster said:
I refuse to let myself believe that all of these organisations/bodies have conspired against ccfc. What IS bad news for these peoplle is dealing with the entity that is,and the people that are connected to , SISU . Who in their right mind would offer Anderson a written record of a basis for the initial discussions on renewing a complicated lease . I can only see Joy filing it as exibit B in the next SISU battering expedition

You got all the buzz words in there. We only needed "Timmy" for a full set and a shed-load of likes.

chiefdave · Jun 1, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
Trouble is after years of confrontation it is hard on either side to stand back and offer partnership and for that to be viewed without suspicion.

This isn't two blokes down the pub having an argument down the pub and refusing to speak to them. It should be possible for them to deal with each other even with a background of legal action. Happens all the time in business, apple have been taking samsung to court since 2011 yet samsung are still one of their suppliers of iPhone parts.
Applies even more when you're talking about councils and charities who should be able to rise above and operate in the best interests of the city. I can't see how the long term damage being done to the club is in the best interests of the city.

olderskyblue · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
Which bit?

Surely it was showing confusion over CSF's statement that didn't really say anything

Because surely you can see the reply will be in the telegraph as soon as the PR company have finished it?

So you don't want both sides to be approached, as 1 sides response will have been written by a PR company? Make your mind up Nick

skyblueinBaku · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
So on one hand you say they aren't conspiring against CCFC and the next bit saying who on earth would work with them, which is basically the first bit you said you wouldn't believe?

I assume that he means there is no conspiicy between them, Nick. They have decided as individual outfits to be unco-operative with CCFC because of Sisu.

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

olderskyblue said:
So you don't want both sides to be approached, as 1 sides response will have been written by a PR company? Make your mind up Nick

I want everybody to be hammered and pressured. No PR Shite!

skybluetony176 · Jun 1, 2016

Fuck me, we now have email gate to add to the BS.

Should CSF have replied to CA's emails? Yes absolutely.

As they didn't should CA have A) put in a phone call to chase a reply? or B) run of crying to The Observor?

The answer is of course A. Anything else is unprofessional and just playing games. Again! Yes I know not replying to emails is also unprofessional but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Both as bad as each other in that respect.

Right. Now we have that sorted. WTF are we going to do about it as fans? Email gate can wait.

stupot07 · Jun 1, 2016

armybike said:
So Anderson has written to him twice about it. What about getting on the phone, arranging a meeting via his PA/Secretary?

Having to letters/emails 'ignored' and then either going to or agreeing to be interviewed by the press just doesn't strike me as being particularly pragmatic.

Si80 said:
Exactly this. Stop fucking about with emails and blabbing to the press about how hard done by you are being treated. Call him up and get it sorted. What a dick.

Did either of you actually read the article? He said he had spoken to him in person as well as the emails.

<snip>
Mr Anderson told the Coventry Observer today there had been no approach to the club by CSF to indicate any change of position, and his repeated requests to open discussions for the club to remain at the centre had been ignored.

<snip
Commenting on Mr Breed’s remarks that it was “exploring options”, Mr Anderson said: “We were delighted that there might be a glimmer of hope. I subsequently wrote to Mr Breed not once, but twice, asking about terms under which the club’s Academy could continue renting the Higgs Centre facilities.

<snip>

On previous discussions with CSF, he said: “I have consistently expressed our view to Mr Breed in person and over email since I first met him last year.

<snip>

“In fact, discussions were held with CSF not too long ago about the idea of using the Academy as part of a long term vision for the centre

<snip>

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

chiefdave · Jun 1, 2016

skyblueindorset said:
I assume that he means there is no conspiicy between them, Nick. They have decided as individual outfits to be unco-operative with CCFC because of Sisu.

Aren't they all connected though? Higgs, CSF and CCC all work together. Wasps are also involved with all three.

olderskyblue · Jun 1, 2016

Nick said:
I want everybody to be hammered and pressured. No PR Shite!

You know that CSF use a PR company? Oh, and believe that CCFC/SISU's articles aren't equally well "considered" before released ??

One way or another, it's most likely PR BS from both sides...

skyblueinBaku · Jun 1, 2016

chiefdave said:
Aren't they all connected though? Higgs, CSF and CCC all work together. Wasps are also involved with all three.

Of course they are connected, Dave. That wouldn't stop them from individually coming to the decision to be obstructive. However, I don't think that is the case. I suspect that CCC's fingerprints are all over this.

Buster · Jun 1, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
So the basis for initial discussions should be....? Do you read what you post at all

a meeting / conversation/ phone call / a lot better and socialy more amicable way to sort things out as your written post seems to show.

sky blue john · Jun 1, 2016

At the end of the day our club and academy is going to get fucked over because of the long running spat between Council/Higgs and Sisu.
Sisu have got everything they deserve so far. They have used our club as a pawn for greed in an attempt to win compensation. They have no interest in CCFC the sooner they fuck off the better. I dread to think what will be left of our club when they do eventually go.

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

UPDATE:

Paul Breed, Chief Executive of the Coventry Sports Foundation, said: “We have had two letters from the football club in recent weeks. We have responded to the first, and the second one is with our directors for consideration while I am away on leave, before we send a reply. We did have a meeting in the diary which Chris had to cancel, and I have asked him if we could reschedule. I have not had a response but hopefully we will.

“The football club has – on the record – made it plain over recent years that it planned to move to a custom built complex including an academy and expressed that view to me in meetings so we have, naturally, worked on that basis. That is partially why agreements were framed to end this summer.

“I was told last March (2015) by a senior official of the club that CCFC was planning to move to a new site and would not be staying at the Higgs Centre for the long term – that was in the same month that the club was discussing with Rugby Borough Council a possible to move to that area. That is no secret – miles of newsprint have been dedicated to that story.

“The Higgs Centre, which we have actually only owned since this March, was built with charity money to be a community sports and leisure facility and we have a responsibility to ensure its successful future.”

So now both need to be pushed to find out who is bullshitting? Whether it is the club or CSF they both have questions to answer.

2 completely different statements, somebody is lying.

I did predict he would say the club was leaving though and refer to newspapers

Nick · Jun 1, 2016

sky blue john said:
At the end of the day our club and academy is going to get fucked over because of the long running spat between Council/Higgs and Sisu.
Sisu have got everything they deserve so far. They have used our club as a pawn for greed in an attempt to win compensation. They have no interest in CCFC the sooner they fuck off the better. I dread to think what will be left of our club when they do eventually go.

But the Higgs / Council do have interest in CCFC?

torchomatic · Jun 1, 2016

“The Higgs Centre, which we have actually only owned since this March, was built with charity money to be a community sports and leisure facility and we have a responsibility to ensure its successful future.”

That should include the city's football club, shouldn't it?

Si80 · Jun 1, 2016

stupot07 said:
Did either of you actually read the article? He said he had spoken to him in person as well as the emails.

Yep, read it. Missed the line about him speaking to him face to face and got back in my box

That all said though... From your <snips>
“In fact, discussions were held with CSF not too long ago about the idea of using the Academy as part of a long term vision for the centre

About the idea? I mean wtf?!? It shouldn't be an idea. It should be imperative that he says we want and this is how long for. Shouldn't it? Then at least CSF can't come back saying "We don't know what their plans are?"
And why say "Not too long ago?" Stop being vague and say the date / time you had that conversation.
This is equal for both parties btw.

Remember when Everton listed all of their income / expenditure a few seasons ago? That's what I want between CCFC & CSF. None of this cloak and dagger bullshit, but we're too far down the line with too many broken relationships for that kind of transparency to happen now

chiefdave · Jun 1, 2016

Think its very telling that the response from CSF makes absolutely no mention of any possibility of the academy remaining at Higgs.

Said earlier in the thread who cares what happened last March. Since Anderson has been here, which was prior to CSF taking ownership of the centre, the message has been consistent from him. That he wants the academy to remain at Higgs.

Simple question for CSF to answer. Can the academy stay or not?

CA: Lease Extension At Higgs Ignored (18 Viewers)

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency